Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Applied Modification Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Creative_Applied_Modification

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Applied Modification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable theory of behavior change that is essentially original research. No clear record of mainstream scientific peer review. Completely unreferenced article created by a SPA. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google search for ("creative applied modification" sokolovsky) turned up no English-language coverage in legitimate sources; my Russian is too rudimentary to judge the Russian-language sources, but the ads lead me to believe that they're not exactly the New England Journal of Medicine по-русски. There's an abstract on the subject at the Euromedica Hanover website; the abysmal quality of the English throughout the Euromedica site, and the fact that the CAM abstract urges readers to consult Wikipedia's Behaviour therapy article, leave the impression that it's not particularly peer-reviewed. Absent coverage by a reliable journal, or third-party evidence that it's pseudoscience with a serious following, it fails WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I can find no evidence of notability here. Lack of English sources isn't itself a deal-breaker, but Tom Morris' Ammodramus' analysis is sound; what evidence there is does not support compliance with the GNG. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My fault: I forgot to sign the "delete" !vote, above, which led to my views being mistakenly attributed to Tom Morris. Ammodramus (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I've amended my comment. Not a huge deal, in the scheme of things. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.